> If Michael Malone was not aware that these negotiations were being held,
> and were likely to succeed in their objective of modifying Melbourne IT's
> Pricing Policy, then he could hardly be blamed for thinking that iinet's
> Court action was the primary reason for Melbourne IT's apparently sudden
> change of heart.
For those interested, I was aware of the ISOC-AU letter (as a
proud member of ISOC-AU). However, I was still not willing to
risk the deregistration of hundreds of clients. Prior attempts
to negotiate with Melbourne IT had been less than fruitful,
with my last approach receiving the response:
"Please take it as definitive that Melbourne IT will be
updating the com.au zone files after March 17 with only
those domain names that have been renewed with payment"
(Peter Gerrand, Feb 17, 1997)
Peter had been informed that we would need to proceed with court
action if negotiations proved unsuccessful. We also made a media
release to this effect. For example:
"Internet access provider, iiNet, is threatened to slap
a Federal Court injunction on Melbourne IT if it doesn't
cancel plans to begin deleting ".com.au" Internet domain
name entries"
(on-Line, 25/02/97)
WAIA, SAIA, ISOC-AU, EFA and INTIAA were notified of the
impending court action. People on this list were also probably
aware of my recent criticisms of Melbourne IT's policies,
which only resulted in threats of a suit for defamation from
MITA on 21/02/97.
iiNet suggested a very reasonable alternative at the last DNA
forum meeting, which received considerable support at the
time, but was rejected by Melbourne IT a week later.
iiNet was (and is) keen to negotiate an outcome other than
continuing court action. We have already sunk a lot of money
into this, and stand to win nothing, even if we are successful.
Personally, I do not believe that arbitration was the correct
response at this time, due to the impending deadline, MITA's
unwillingness to negotiate thus far, and Peter's definitive
response, quoted above.
MM